Jump to content
49erurtaza

Matt Ryan and Falcons agree to contract extension first 30 million a year QB

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, GSUeagles14 said:

were moving away from teh main point here as if they really wanted to sign guys there were either ways to free money up, but spotrac has been pretty reliable and they say you had 5 mil including the mathis signing.

 

Amd you didnt answer my question, where is the line for what is "brutal" and what isnt? No one know what the cap will be in two years, in the last 5 years it has grown between 6-8%/year, that puts the cap between 198-205 in 2020. Obviously thats just projections but Ryans % then would be more like 15-15.5%. Again, wheres the line?

The answer is simple - it’s not a line it’s a continuum - the higher you go the harder it gets.   And that’s of course if the play level at least merits the tier of pay involved.   It’s why the rookie deal contract with top 10 QB play is the Holy Grail - it’s at the lower end of the continuum. 

To suggest it’s a line is naive beyond belief.  It’s not like someone is at 0.1% below an arbitrary line that team is ok and 0.1% above they’re now not OK.  Is that what you are seriously suggesting?  This isn’t a casual fan forum I know you can’t seriously believe that.   

It was hard when Manning’s 12 percent was in.   It gets only harder the higher you go.  That’s my statement - the higher you go the harder it gets.   So far no one has been able to do it at the levels we are seeing being committed to.

Eventually someone will make it work.   So far no one has above Manning’s 16M and the corresponding % (which does matter more since the cap is already 35M+ higher than 2015).    It just shows that the margin for error gets smaller.  The % is for sure the better # to use given the cap’s increases.   It just doesn’t negate the statement that it gets a lot harder the more you commit to QB (or any one position for that matter). 

Edited by Broncofan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

The answer is simple - it’s not a line it’s a continuum - the higher you go the harder it gets.   And that’s of course if the play level at least merits the tier of pay involved.   It’s why the rookie deal contract with top 10 QB play is the Holy Grail - it’s at the lower end of the continuum. 

To suggest it’s a line is naive beyond belief.  It’s not like someone is at 0.1% below an arbitrary line that team is ok and 0.1% above they’re now not OK.  Is that what you are seriously suggesting?  This isn’t a casual fan forum I know you can’t seriously believe that.    

It was hard when Manning’s 12 percent was in.   It gets only harder the higher you go.  That’s my statement - the higher you go the harder it gets.   So far no one has been able to do it at the levels we are seeing being committed to.

Eventually someone will make it work.   So far no one has above Manning’s 16M and the corresponding %.    It just shows that the margin gets harder.  The % is for sure the better # given the cap’s increases.   It just doesn’t negate the statement that it gets a lot harder the more you commit to QB (or any one position for that matter). 

theres nothing to prove that though really. youre looking at an extremely small sample size, coming in with a predisposed belief and saying that most be the reason. How many Sbs have been won in the last 15 years without excellent qb play in the postseason? how many left handed kickers have won the sb? when youre dealing with a sample size of like 10, you can find numerous irrelevant factors that really have no bearing on the outcome but yet hasnt happened yet. Doesnt make it a legitimate factor.

And while Mannings hit was 12%, per spotrac, they had another 3% that was unused. so thats 15% of the cap going to the qb or no other player. And they won, and i dont think anyone would say it was more difficult than when they giants or packers or ravens did it. And we dont know exactly what % of teh cap is assigned to ryan past this year, so what commitment are you really taling about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

theres nothing to prove that though really. youre looking at an extremely small sample size, coming in with a predisposed belief and saying that most be the reason. How many Sbs have been won in the last 15 years without excellent qb play in the postseason? how many left handed kickers have won the sb? when youre dealing with a sample size of like 10, you can find numerous irrelevant factors that really have no bearing on the outcome but yet hasnt happened yet. Doesnt make it a legitimate factor.

And while Mannings hit was 12%, per spotrac, they had another 3% that was unused. so thats 15% of the cap going to the qb or no other player. And they won, and i dont think anyone would say it was more difficult than when they giants or packers or ravens did it. And we dont know exactly what % of teh cap is assigned to ryan past this year, so what commitment are you really taling about?

And you’re dismissing the data altogether. That argument works both ways.   It’s also just borne out of belief going in. With zero data to back it up.  

When you don’t have enough sample size then plausibility and logic are fallbacks.   Is it both plausible and logical that if you spend more $ on 1 guy and have less for the rest in a sport that requires so many components, this hinders the ability to build the championship winner?   Logic and plausible answers are both yes.   Is it impossible to do so?   IMO no.   Logic would say no either.   But harder?   Hard to argue logic and plausibility.  

My view is that it’s a continuum.  It’s not impossible, but it gets a lot harder the higher you go.  The fact you would even argue a nuanced view that’s not absolute, well, let’s just agree to disagree.   You can cite sample size but we are also using the only data available.   And given I see it as a continuum I feel comfortable with my side.  We don’t have to agree.  

Edited by Broncofan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/5/2018 at 5:11 AM, FourThreeMafia said:

While I agree in general, I think thats whats becoming wrong with QB contracts.   

You have largely unproven QBs (like Garroppolo) getting huge contracts before proving much of anything, and its hiking up the prices of QBs who have actually proven their worth over numerous years.    The JG fanboys can claim all they want that he is the next big thing, but that doesnt mean he deserved the kind of money he got so soon.    Im not saying he wont live up to that contract.....Im saying that moronic contracts are driving up the prices on all QBs.

Someone asked the question not to long ago "Are QBs overvalued?"    They are obviously the most important INDIVIDUAL piece of a team, but we are getting to a point where they are getting overvalued.    Because....when does it end?   QB contracts are inflating faster than the salary cap is rising.  

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said. And to be clear, my point of asking the question was not meant to be taken as if I was disagreeing with anyone who believes that Ryan's contract is absurd. I don't wanna it to come off that way because I am neither for or against it. A valid argument can be made from both sides with equally just as many negatives and positives. But I do think the Falcons made the right choice given the limited options that were available to them. (I know you weren't arguing these points FourThree, I'm simply just using this opportunity now to be more clear on my stance is all). 

As you said, these contracts are definitely getting out of hand. At some point, we have to drawn a line between value and importance, and try to find a more even balance between them. Because, right now as of late, what we're seeing is that importance is strongly out-weighing value, which is ultimately where the problem lies.

Now, how do you fix this issue....I don't have an answer for that either. I think the rookie pay scale helps to alleviate the problem, but it doesn't necessarily "fix it", because QB's like Goff and Wentz are most likely going to re-set the market again in a couple of years when they recieve their 2nd contracts and snowball effect continues from there. And like you said, where does it end?

With all of that said though, this brings up another point. This problem is not only happening at the QB position either. It's been happening with other positions such as edge rushers and CB's as well. I mean, fully proven Von Miller's 19 APY is going to look like a steal by this time next year and we just watched the Bears make unproven Kyle Fuller the 5th highest paid corner in the league. 

So this raises an interesting question(albeit a bit hypothetical). If we look at paying a QB (who is in Ryan's current position) 30M APY as unnacceptable and agree on, say 20M as acceptable.....would teams properly allocate that extra 10M in the same way that some may presume that it would be(better role players, key FA, etc)? Or would it just be used to fill the pockets of even more Kyle Fuller's in league and other unproven commodities?

Again, I'm not arguing any certain point here. Just throwing out some thoughts is all. 

Edited by JustAnotherFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few questions.

How many QB's have signed two 100 million dollar contracts?

What will Rodgers be worth when he signs his?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kiwibrown said:

A few questions.

How many QB's have signed two 100 million dollar contracts?

What will Rodgers be worth when he signs his?

Go on.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said:

Go on.....

Are top WR's and DE's worth 80% of QB contracts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kiwibrown said:

Are top WR's and DE's worth 80% of QB contracts?

That's a broad question. It's more team based than anything, which kind of goes back to value vs importance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On ‎5‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 7:54 PM, jarren said:

Did you miss the part where I said 

Also nobody is putting Ryan on Rodgers or Bradys level so comparing him with those guys makes no sense. He's probably on that next tier. 

The QBs id take over Ryan? 

Rodgers, Brady, Wentz, Big Ben, Wentz, Wilson and Brees. Also a healthy Luck. But you can put him on the same tier as everyone sans Brady and Rodgers.  

Funny how you say they don't take sacks when it'll lose them games. Yet Brady just took a sack that led to a fumble and pretty much iced the games in the Superbowl.

As for the pre snap adjustments. You're overrating ARod in that regard. For example Atlanta has beat him up the last couple meeting because they've been able to pressure him. DQ has got him a few times with nicely timed blitz designs. Rodgers was fooled a bunch in that NFCCG. 

 

Completely different situation dude. We're talking about taking a sack when you're already in FG range with a chance to ice the game. The Patriots weren't sitting on a comfy lead like the Falcons were in that Super Bowl. All Matt Ryan had to do was not screw up and he screwed up. That's a totally different matter than having to actually go down the field to win the game. And it wasn't just the one sack. Matt Ryan was sacked earlier in the 4th quarter and fumbled which gave NE a short field and basically jumpstarted their rally to win the game. We're talking two catastrophic sacks in the 4th quarter that played a major role in that game. Matt Ryan is literally almost solely responsible for that collapse and loss. I just don't see Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady losing a playoff game up by 25 points, let alone the Super Bowl. That collapse is forever going to tarnish Matt Ryan's legacy. That was quite a choke job. It's one thing to take a sack when the chips are down and you are trying to make plays to drive your team down the field. It's another matter entirely when you are simply trying to ice the game and you take an atrocious sack.

I'm not saying guys like Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady don't ever get sacked. Of course they do. What I'm saying is that in a critical situation like Matt Ryan was in they would have had an enhanced sense of urgency to make sure that they aren't in position to take a sack. Matt Ryan is always going to be the guy that choked away a Super Bowl with a 25 point lead. He got shut out in the 2nd half while surrounded by elite players on offense and took costly sacks late in the game.

In regards to the NFCCG, the Packers never had a chance in that game. They were simply overmatched by a much more talented Falcons team. That was pretty obvious. The Packers secondary was decimated by injuries that year and were banged up at WR and RB. Are you really trying to say that the Falcons being able to relentlessly pin Rodgers ears back because he was hopelessly behind is the same situation as simply needing to FG to ice a game? By the way that game could have been completely different had the Fullback not fumbled the ball inside the red zone and had Mason Crosby not missed a chip shot field goal early in the game. It could have been 10-10, instead it was 10-0 and there was just no way the Packers were going to stop the Falcons that day.  Aaron Rodgers didn't even have a RB that knew how to play the position in that game. Ty Montgomery was failing on a regular basis to pickup the blitz. He did start the season as a WR after all and was thrown in to play RB as an emergency. Come on dude. You know Matt Ryan and Aaron Rodgers were not on a level playing field that day. It was a miracle that the Packers made it to the NFCCG. That was not a very good team. I don't think you will ever see Matt Ryan pull off a feat like that. All in all Matt Ryan had a much much better team around him that day. It's kind of a joke to try to compare Aaron Rodgers and Matt Ryan in the NFC Championship Game. Rodgers was missing his best WR, and didn't even have a RB,  I mean. Not just a weak running game but literally, the Packers didn't have a RB.  They were trying to use a WR and a Fullback in lieu of an actually RB, and then they had an atrocious secondary that got lit up all year long and just simply didn't stand a chance against the Falcons offense. The 2016 Packers are probably a 6-10 team with Matt Ryan as their QB. I mean seriously. No running game, banged up WRs, and an atrocious defense.

Edited by strat1080

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, strat1080 said:

Matt Ryan was sacked earlier in the 4th quarter and fumbled which gave NE a short field and basically jumpstarted their rally to win the game.

It wasn't on Matt. He trusted Freeman to pick up that block. Freeman didn't pick it up. Anyone that has ever worked or functioned in a team knows that sometimes you need to put absolute faith in a member of your team. If that person screws up you're screwed. That is what happened. I don't blame Matt for that one at all.

Lets also not forget that the Falcons Oline was banged up beyond recognition. Mack was playing with a broken leg and Schreader was all banged up. They kept Matt clear for the first half but understandably so couldn't keep it up for a full game.

Matt was the biggest reason we reached the SB. He has one of the highest 4th quarter comeback percentages in the league. He's a straight up baller. And he's "muh QB".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, strat1080 said:

Completely different situation dude. We're talking about taking a sack when you're already in FG range with a chance to ice the game. The Patriots weren't sitting on a comfy lead like the Falcons were in that Super Bowl. All Matt Ryan had to do was not screw up and he screwed up. That's a totally different matter than having to actually go down the field to win the game. And it wasn't just the one sack. Matt Ryan was sacked earlier in the 4th quarter and fumbled which gave NE a short field and basically jumpstarted their rally to win the game. We're talking two catastrophic sacks in the 4th quarter that played a major role in that game. Matt Ryan is literally almost solely responsible for that collapse and loss. I just don't see Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady losing a playoff game up by 25 points, let alone the Super Bowl. That collapse is forever going to tarnish Matt Ryan's legacy. That was quite a choke job. It's one thing to take a sack when the chips are down and you are trying to make plays to drive your team down the field. It's another matter entirely when you are simply trying to ice the game and you take an atrocious sack.

I'm not saying guys like Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady don't ever get sacked. Of course they do. What I'm saying is that in a critical situation like Matt Ryan was in they would have had an enhanced sense of urgency to make sure that they aren't in position to take a sack. Matt Ryan is always going to be the guy that choked away a Super Bowl with a 25 point lead. He got shut out in the 2nd half while surrounded by elite players on offense and took costly sacks late in the game.

In regards to the NFCCG, the Packers never had a chance in that game. They were simply overmatched by a much more talented Falcons team. That was pretty obvious. The Packers secondary was decimated by injuries that year and were banged up at WR and RB. Are you really trying to say that the Falcons being able to relentlessly pin Rodgers ears back because he was hopelessly behind is the same situation as simply needing to FG to ice a game? By the way that game could have been completely different had the Fullback not fumbled the ball inside the red zone and had Mason Crosby not missed a chip shot field goal early in the game. It could have been 10-10, instead it was 10-0 and there was just no way the Packers were going to stop the Falcons that day.  Aaron Rodgers didn't even have a RB that knew how to play the position in that game. Ty Montgomery was failing on a regular basis to pickup the blitz. He did start the season as a WR after all and was thrown in to play RB as an emergency. Come on dude. You know Matt Ryan and Aaron Rodgers were not on a level playing field that day. It was a miracle that the Packers made it to the NFCCG. That was not a very good team. I don't think you will ever see Matt Ryan pull off a feat like that. All in all Matt Ryan had a much much better team around him that day. It's kind of a joke to try to compare Aaron Rodgers and Matt Ryan in the NFC Championship Game. Rodgers was missing his best WR, and didn't even have a RB,  I mean. Not just a weak running game but literally, the Packers didn't have a RB.  They were trying to use a WR and a Fullback in lieu of an actually RB, and then they had an atrocious secondary that got lit up all year long and just simply didn't stand a chance against the Falcons offense. The 2016 Packers are probably a 6-10 team with Matt Ryan as their QB. I mean seriously. No running game, banged up WRs, and an atrocious defense.

i really need someone to post that billy madison dumbest thing gif. i dont think it will ever be more called for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, strat1080 said:

Completely different situation dude. We're talking about taking a sack when you're already in FG range with a chance to ice the game. The Patriots weren't sitting on a comfy lead like the Falcons were in that Super Bowl. All Matt Ryan had to do was not screw up and he screwed up. That's a totally different matter than having to actually go down the field to win the game. And it wasn't just the one sack. Matt Ryan was sacked earlier in the 4th quarter and fumbled which gave NE a short field and basically jumpstarted their rally to win the game. We're talking two catastrophic sacks in the 4th quarter that played a major role in that game. Matt Ryan is literally almost solely responsible for that collapse and loss. I just don't see Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady losing a playoff game up by 25 points, let alone the Super Bowl. That collapse is forever going to tarnish Matt Ryan's legacy. That was quite a choke job. It's one thing to take a sack when the chips are down and you are trying to make plays to drive your team down the field. It's another matter entirely when you are simply trying to ice the game and you take an atrocious sack.

I'm not saying guys like Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady don't ever get sacked. Of course they do. What I'm saying is that in a critical situation like Matt Ryan was in they would have had an enhanced sense of urgency to make sure that they aren't in position to take a sack. Matt Ryan is always going to be the guy that choked away a Super Bowl with a 25 point lead. He got shut out in the 2nd half while surrounded by elite players on offense and took costly sacks late in the game.

In regards to the NFCCG, the Packers never had a chance in that game. They were simply overmatched by a much more talented Falcons team. That was pretty obvious. The Packers secondary was decimated by injuries that year and were banged up at WR and RB. Are you really trying to say that the Falcons being able to relentlessly pin Rodgers ears back because he was hopelessly behind is the same situation as simply needing to FG to ice a game? By the way that game could have been completely different had the Fullback not fumbled the ball inside the red zone and had Mason Crosby not missed a chip shot field goal early in the game. It could have been 10-10, instead it was 10-0 and there was just no way the Packers were going to stop the Falcons that day.  Aaron Rodgers didn't even have a RB that knew how to play the position in that game. Ty Montgomery was failing on a regular basis to pickup the blitz. He did start the season as a WR after all and was thrown in to play RB as an emergency. Come on dude. You know Matt Ryan and Aaron Rodgers were not on a level playing field that day. It was a miracle that the Packers made it to the NFCCG. That was not a very good team. I don't think you will ever see Matt Ryan pull off a feat like that. All in all Matt Ryan had a much much better team around him that day. It's kind of a joke to try to compare Aaron Rodgers and Matt Ryan in the NFC Championship Game. Rodgers was missing his best WR, and didn't even have a RB,  I mean. Not just a weak running game but literally, the Packers didn't have a RB.  They were trying to use a WR and a Fullback in lieu of an actually RB, and then they had an atrocious secondary that got lit up all year long and just simply didn't stand a chance against the Falcons offense. The 2016 Packers are probably a 6-10 team with Matt Ryan as their QB. I mean seriously. No running game, banged up WRs, and an atrocious defense.

Your reading comprehension is horrendous. 

Edited by jarren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, strat1080 said:

Completely different situation dude. We're talking about taking a sack when you're already in FG range with a chance to ice the game. The Patriots weren't sitting on a comfy lead like the Falcons were in that Super Bowl. All Matt Ryan had to do was not screw up and he screwed up. That's a totally different matter than having to actually go down the field to win the game. And it wasn't just the one sack. Matt Ryan was sacked earlier in the 4th quarter and fumbled which gave NE a short field and basically jumpstarted their rally to win the game. We're talking two catastrophic sacks in the 4th quarter that played a major role in that game. Matt Ryan is literally almost solely responsible for that collapse and loss. I just don't see Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady losing a playoff game up by 25 points, let alone the Super Bowl. That collapse is forever going to tarnish Matt Ryan's legacy. That was quite a choke job. It's one thing to take a sack when the chips are down and you are trying to make plays to drive your team down the field. It's another matter entirely when you are simply trying to ice the game and you take an atrocious sack.

I'm not saying guys like Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady don't ever get sacked. Of course they do. What I'm saying is that in a critical situation like Matt Ryan was in they would have had an enhanced sense of urgency to make sure that they aren't in position to take a sack. Matt Ryan is always going to be the guy that choked away a Super Bowl with a 25 point lead. He got shut out in the 2nd half while surrounded by elite players on offense and took costly sacks late in the game.

In regards to the NFCCG, the Packers never had a chance in that game. They were simply overmatched by a much more talented Falcons team. That was pretty obvious. The Packers secondary was decimated by injuries that year and were banged up at WR and RB. Are you really trying to say that the Falcons being able to relentlessly pin Rodgers ears back because he was hopelessly behind is the same situation as simply needing to FG to ice a game? By the way that game could have been completely different had the Fullback not fumbled the ball inside the red zone and had Mason Crosby not missed a chip shot field goal early in the game. It could have been 10-10, instead it was 10-0 and there was just no way the Packers were going to stop the Falcons that day.  Aaron Rodgers didn't even have a RB that knew how to play the position in that game. Ty Montgomery was failing on a regular basis to pickup the blitz. He did start the season as a WR after all and was thrown in to play RB as an emergency. Come on dude. You know Matt Ryan and Aaron Rodgers were not on a level playing field that day. It was a miracle that the Packers made it to the NFCCG. That was not a very good team. I don't think you will ever see Matt Ryan pull off a feat like that. All in all Matt Ryan had a much much better team around him that day. It's kind of a joke to try to compare Aaron Rodgers and Matt Ryan in the NFC Championship Game. Rodgers was missing his best WR, and didn't even have a RB,  I mean. Not just a weak running game but literally, the Packers didn't have a RB.  They were trying to use a WR and a Fullback in lieu of an actually RB, and then they had an atrocious secondary that got lit up all year long and just simply didn't stand a chance against the Falcons offense. The 2016 Packers are probably a 6-10 team with Matt Ryan as their QB. I mean seriously. No running game, banged up WRs, and an atrocious defense.

 

14 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

i really need someone to post that billy madison dumbest thing gif. i dont think it will ever be more called for.

Well, I'm not going quite that far, but...

tumblr_lpyw2pNhaZ1r0w4bgo1_500.jpg?13194

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's OverTheCap with their breakdown and general comments on paying QBs

https://overthecap.com/thoughts-matt-ryans-new-contract

"People often ask why the NFL was dominated by so few players for such a long period of time and I personally believe a lot of that was due to the overpayment of the QB. The NFL in recent years has had a few tiers of players. The ultra elites of Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning, and Drew Brees. The top flight starters with Matt Ryan, Ben Roethlisberger, and Russell Wilson. An average tier of Philip Rivers, and so on…Except everyone was paid the same regardless of what tier.

Instead of using the difference in salary at the QB spot to enhance deficiencies in other areas by outspending those with elites, the NFL General Managers fell into this trap of being so fearful of losing a passable Ryan Tannehill or Joe Flacco in free agency that they paid them as if they were ultra elite players. Instead of having some financial advantages in free agency to use on other players they were on the same footing as the Patriots. Not surprisingly the other teams could not build teams to compete."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Here's OverTheCap with their breakdown and general comments on paying QBs

https://overthecap.com/thoughts-matt-ryans-new-contract

"People often ask why the NFL was dominated by so few players for such a long period of time and I personally believe a lot of that was due to the overpayment of the QB. The NFL in recent years has had a few tiers of players. The ultra elites of Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning, and Drew Brees. The top flight starters with Matt Ryan, Ben Roethlisberger, and Russell Wilson. An average tier of Philip Rivers, and so on…Except everyone was paid the same regardless of what tier.

Instead of using the difference in salary at the QB spot to enhance deficiencies in other areas by outspending those with elites, the NFL General Managers fell into this trap of being so fearful of losing a passable Ryan Tannehill or Joe Flacco in free agency that they paid them as if they were ultra elite players. Instead of having some financial advantages in free agency to use on other players they were on the same footing as the Patriots. Not surprisingly the other teams could not build teams to compete."

I think the Jags are a good recent example of a team bucking this trend.  They seem to accept the fact that they have a below average QB, but he is good enough to not consistently lose them games.  They allocated the money that would have gone to someone like Kirk Cousins (top 10-12 QB being paid top 3 money) towards retaining as much of their league-leading defense as possible.

The Bengals did it with Dalton too, but their owner is too cheap to actually take advantage of it.  He seems to get off on just pocketing the savings that should be going to improving the team through FA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×